Conclusion:
Citizens
should defend with their lives the individuality of the state.
“If [the
state’s] autonomy is in jeopardy, all its citizens are in duty bound to answer
the summons to its defense” (326/300).
Premises:
1. The state
has individuality (321/298).
-The mind
after incorporating differences into itself sees itself as an individual, a
unit exclusive of other units.
-The
sovereign state incorporates differences into itself just as the mind does.
-The state
is aware of its existence in sharp distinction from others, i.e. foreign states.
-The
original appearance of a state in history is represented by an individual at
its head, a chieftain or a patriarch, that represents a single amalgamation of
the wishes of a collection of people (298).
2. It is a citizen’s
duty to go to war and defend this individuality of the state from foreign
states (326/300).
-Sacrifice
on behalf of the state’s individuality is a substantial tie between the state
and its members (325/300). The state cannot develop without its members, and the
members cannot develop without the state.
-Citizens
and the state have a reciprocal relationship. The state protects citizens’
individual rights and welfare (including the protection from crime) (537/285),
and the citizens in return must protect the state from foreign states.
-The
substance of the state, i.e. its absolute power, may nullify individual rights
and interests within, but it also posits those absolutes into consciousness
(324/298). The state’s individuality is necessary for this consciousness.
-Citizens will
become indifferent to ideas of freedom and rights when they are not willing to
die (300).
-The state’s
individuality is represented by the crown. The crown makes decisions in foreign
affairs, and the members of the state have to follow his decisions
unconditionally to maintain the individuality of the state (329/302).
3. The class
of citizens devoted to the state’s defense will be characterized by courage,
for risking their lives.
-The soldier
has to sacrifice everything, all personal opinions and reasoning, all possessions
and happiness in life, just to preserve the sovereignty of the state (327/301).
-Courage is
a formal virtue; it’s what others see, and not what one necessarily is. These
soldiers can have other motives, besides courage, for defending their country,
but because of their sacrifice, they will be seen as courageous (326/301).
-Robbers and
murderers risk their lives also, but they do it for their own whims. The
soldier risks his/her life for a greater whole (301).
Concerning the last premise you mentioned here on the class of citizens whom devoted their lives for the state is characterized by courage. This gives me a sense of excuse of attraction statement for many to show more risk and will to give up more for the sake of showing courage rather than my opinion on one to do what they can do best and serve the purpose of their been in whichever class or category they might have been employed to serve in. The courage my be pointed to based on ones ability to show success in doing what others fear to do but isn't courage not the goal for one of doing anything but rather the implication that comes along with ones good self identification to providing what the task asks to get done and doing it when one can feel ability to succeed at it rather than taking someone else's better fit position.
ReplyDeleteThe example of soldier is to serve the purpose and aim he believes he can do better than another person and giving something the country needs and he owes his society been who he is. A courageous isn't courageous because he is soldier but A soldier is a soldier because he is courageous. Courage is used to serve the purpose but the other way around ... I think!
I have strong feelings about this blog being a soldier myself. Hegel says "Courage is a formal virtue; it’s what others see, and not what one necessarily is..." Comparing this passage to say modern day military, one can say that men and women join the military for several different reason not often because of patriotism, however it is a volunteer armed forces. When a person sees someone in uniform they do not wonder why they are in that uniform all they know is that this person in helping to preserve their freedom. However, no matter the reasons for joing the military or the police force or say being a firefighter, a person for the most part is fully aware of the risk in agreeing to make these choices as a profession. A choice that not everybody makes. My point is, no matter the selfish reasons one chooses to protect their cities or defend their country it is seen as couragous. They could have easily chosen any other less dangerous profession but choose to risk their lives everyday to do their job to the best of their capability. Hegel is correct in saying that "The soldier has to sacrifice everything, all personal opinions and reasoning, all possessions and happiness in life..."
ReplyDeleteDoes Hegel say anything about the citizen's need to defend the state from internal problems? Your second premise mentions how we must defend the state from foreign states, but I think that problems from within are as important, if not more. We generally see a trend of countries undergoing revolution in order to reach a freer form of government. I think this process is very similar to the self actualization of individuals and thus, this internal strife of states is one of the characteristics of its individuality.
ReplyDeleteHegel's notion of duty reminds me of Kant who was into duty and was saying that individuals ought to do their duties. Additionally, Premise 2 where it says, "The state cannot develop without its members, and the members cannot develop without the state" is indeed true. Since people/community creates the state.
ReplyDelete